Is god a mammal?

[Wertbag]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

But if Genesis 9 applies, then any meat-eating animal is also accountable to god.

I always thought it meant "Accountable" as in "should be killed".  If an animal kills a person then it will be put down.  Very much a here and now physical punishment, not one reliant on god doing the punishing after death.

[walterpthefirst]

Ok Wertbag, I'll concede.

 

Sometimes when playing devil's advocate too much speculation creeps in.

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

On 8/3/2022 at 10:57 AM, alreadyGone said:

Human beings are mammals.

The American Heritage dictionary defines mammal as:

(noun)

"Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young."

 

Is God then a mammal?

 

I'm going to go ahead and drop a bomb on this line of reasoning and questioning.

 

Ready, set, go! 

 

 

I've purposely chosen a more objective analysis and left the new age directions out of it. Because even with the objective analysis, the similarities are odd. And of course, it's unknown as to what, if anything, this all means. 

 

Why TF is it that the universe at large tends to resemble the interior of a mammalian brain???

 

1) I've taken into account Donald Hoffman's work and how evolution by natural selection favors fitness over truth, which then leads to the development of "species-specific user interfaces." The notion that perception is species-specific. We see a mirror reflection of our own interior neural networks when looking at the universe at large, it would seem.

 

So, would a reptile see the same - a mirror reflection of itself when viewing the universe at large scale? And observe something different from what we observe? 

 

If our perception of reality has to do with perceiving something like a projector screen of "potential," out there, then we would be projecting our own "likeness" out at the projector screen condensing that result from the screen of potential. And so would anything else doing the same. Christians are still fucked in this one. It would still be man creating a god in man's imagine and not the other way around. 

 

Christians are trying to latch onto stuff like this. This very issue, in fact. But there's nowhere for them to take it that comes back to supporting their assertions. 

 

2) Here's the other way we've been speculating about this in the private ontological groups. I should air this second speculation out here too. 

 

What if we're not simply projecting what it looks like "out there," but it really is what it's like out there??? Christians are still pretty fucked in that scenario, too.

 

Because it would mean that we're currently living inside of the interior of a larger life form. Inside of its neural networks. 

 

Perhaps the fractal natural of reality could cause repetition that literally results in infinite inward and outward fractals of repetition, which, would mean that we're inside of a living creature and living creatures are inside of us too. Without cease, over and over. And that's what life and existence amounts to. 

 

3) What about a combination of 1) and 2)? Where infinite replication of species-specific fractal realities, on the screen of potential, play out infinitely inward and outward, per species? 

 

The creature we're in (appearing mammalian to our perception) would no more be a god in the supernatural sense, than we are supernatural right now to whatever could be living in the interior of each of our individual minds. If we said that the larger creature is supernatural, that would be to say that we're supernatural from the perspective of our interior minds.

 

Do the christians think that we're supernatural gods? 

 

Done, game over for apologists trying to pursue this direction to usurp it for christianity. And watch, I bet we'll see at least a few ill-conceived apologists show up here and try to argue both examples which I've already mapped out and refuted. Having no idea that anyone has already thought it out this far. 

 

I say that because I've already seen them trying to go that direction on social media groups and it's just a matter of time before they start showing up here too. Christians who think they're hip, savvy, intellectual, and "mystical." And who want very much to try and usurp modern philosophy these new agey issues for the church.

 

But, once again, their efforts will be "all for naught." These directions don't justify the bible in any way. They do the reverse instead. 

[Joshpantera]

Bernardo Kastrup recently weighed in on the issue in an interview. Looks like he favors the species-specific user interface interpretation: 

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 8/20/2022 at 7:14 AM, Joshpantera said:

Bernardo Kastrup recently weighed in on the issue in an interview. Looks like he favors the species-specific user interface interpretation: 

 

 

 

 

Well shit then Josh, I'll go with Bernardo Kastrup's opinion.

 

Myself, I'm not one to argue against any species-specific user interface interpretation.